439 P.3d 965
Or.2019Background
- Claimant responded to a truck-driver job ad, provided credentials, and was scheduled for a mandatory DOT preemployment on-road driving test with an experienced driver as passenger.
- During the supervised delivery/test, claimant fell from the employer’s truck and was injured; he had not filled out tax forms, received a written offer, or been placed on insurance.
- Employer/owner testified the road test was unpaid and that hire and tax-form completion would occur only after passing; ALJ and Board found employer credible and discredited claimant’s claim he was promised 25% of gross.
- SAIF denied the workers’ compensation claim for lack of status as a “worker” under ORS 656.005(30); the Board affirmed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning minimum wage law implied an entitlement to pay and therefore claimant was a “worker.”
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review and held the Court of Appeals erred, affirming the Board’s denial because claimant did not reasonably expect remuneration when injured.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant injured during a preemployment drive test is a "worker" under ORS 656.005(30) | Gadalean: performing a delivery is "work" and minimum wage law creates an entitlement to pay, so claimant was a worker | SAIF/Employer: statute requires the claimant to have engaged to furnish services "for a remuneration"—i.e., a reasonable expectation of pay; an implied-in-law entitlement (minimum wage) is insufficient | Held: claimant was not a worker because he did not reasonably expect remuneration; minimum wage entitlement alone does not satisfy ORS 656.005(30) |
| Whether minimum wage law can be used to imply a contract satisfying "for a remuneration" | Claimant: minimum wage law reforms or implies pay into the agreement, establishing remuneration expectation | SAIF: workers' compensation definition is statutory and requires claimant-focused expectation; cannot substitute minimum wage definitions or common-law remedies | Held: minimum wage law does not convert or substitute the statutory requirement; entitlement under minimum wage alone is inadequate |
| Whether a contract implied in law (quantum meruit/restitution) suffices to show engagement "for a remuneration" | Claimant/Ct. of Appeals: implied-in-law entitlement creates remuneration obligation and makes claimant a worker | SAIF: implied-in-law contract establishes entitlement but not the claimant’s expectation of pay required by the statute | Held: A contract implied in law (entitlement) does not satisfy the statutory requirement that claimant have reasonably expected remuneration |
| Role of claimant's reasonable expectation and employer statements that test was unpaid | Claimant: focusing on the work performed is dispositive; whether employer’s objective purpose was evaluation should not control | SAIF/Employer: explicit/unambiguous notice that test was unpaid negates any reasonable expectation of pay | Held: where employer told claimant the test was unpaid and claimant did not show a reasonable expectation of pay, he is not a worker under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (statutory interpretation framework)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (statutory interpretation and context)
- Gadalean v. SAIF, 286 Or. App. 227 (Court of Appeals decision concluding minimum wage law made claimant a worker)
- Amos v. SAIF, 72 Or. App. 145 (Court of Appeals using another statutory scheme in workers' compensation context)
- Derenco v. Benj. Franklin Fed. Sav. and Loan, 281 Or. 533 (discussion of contract implied in law as restitutionary rule)